These tools will no longer be maintained as of December 31, 2024. Archived website can be found here. PubMed4Hh GitHub repository can be found here. Contact NLM Customer Service if you have questions.


BIOMARKERS

Molecular Biopsy of Human Tumors

- a resource for Precision Medicine *

141 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 8809249)

  • 1. An in vivo investigation of seating and removal forces associated with recording impressions in dentate patients.
    Sotiriou M; Hobkirk JA
    J Prosthet Dent; 1995 Nov; 74(5):455-62. PubMed ID: 8809249
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 2. Distortion of disposable plastic stock trays when used with putty vinyl polysiloxane impression materials.
    Cho GC; Chee WW
    J Prosthet Dent; 2004 Oct; 92(4):354-8. PubMed ID: 15507908
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 3. The effect of tray selection, viscosity of impression material, and sequence of pour on the accuracy of dies made from dual-arch impressions.
    Ceyhan JA; Johnson GH; Lepe X
    J Prosthet Dent; 2003 Aug; 90(2):143-9. PubMed ID: 12886207
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 4. Dimensional accuracy of dental casts: influence of tray material, impression material, and time.
    Thongthammachat S; Moore BK; Barco MT; Hovijitra S; Brown DT; Andres CJ
    J Prosthodont; 2002 Jun; 11(2):98-108. PubMed ID: 12087547
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 5. Influence of tray rigidity and impression technique on accuracy of polyvinyl siloxane impressions.
    Hoyos A; Soderholm KJ
    Int J Prosthodont; 2011; 24(1):49-54. PubMed ID: 21210004
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 6. The accuracy of polyvinyl siloxane impressions made with standard and reinforced stock trays.
    Wassell RW; Ibbetson RJ
    J Prosthet Dent; 1991 Jun; 65(6):748-57. PubMed ID: 2072315
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 7. Impression trifecta: three tools and tips for better impressions.
    Gottlieb M; Fagin M
    Todays FDA; 2011; 23(3):57-61. PubMed ID: 21568211
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 8. Adhesion of elastomeric impression materials to trays.
    Bindra B; Heath JR
    J Oral Rehabil; 1997 Jan; 24(1):63-9. PubMed ID: 9049922
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 9. The influence of implant placement depth and impression material on the stability of an open tray impression coping.
    Linkevicius T; Svediene O; Vindasiute E; Puisys A; Linkeviciene L
    J Prosthet Dent; 2012 Oct; 108(4):238-43. PubMed ID: 23031730
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 10. Plastic trays and accurate impressions.
    Wassell RW
    Br Dent J; 1998 Mar; 184(6):266. PubMed ID: 9581358
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 11. The effects of disposable and custom-made impression trays on the accuracy of impressions.
    Burton JF; Hood JA; Plunkett DJ; Johnson SS
    J Dent; 1989 Jun; 17(3):121-3. PubMed ID: 2671076
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 12. Reproducibility of sterilized rubber impressions.
    Abdelaziz KM; Hassan AM; Hodges JS
    Braz Dent J; 2004; 15(3):209-13. PubMed ID: 15798825
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 13. Dimensional accuracy of 2-stage putty-wash impressions: influence of impression trays and viscosity.
    Balkenhol M; Ferger P; Wöstmann B
    Int J Prosthodont; 2007; 20(6):573-5. PubMed ID: 18069363
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 14. Pressure generated on a simulated oral analog by impression materials in custom trays of different designs.
    Masri R; Driscoll CF; Burkhardt J; Von Fraunhofer A; Romberg E
    J Prosthodont; 2002 Sep; 11(3):155-60. PubMed ID: 12237795
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 15. Custom impression trays. Part II: Removal forces.
    Dixon DL; Breeding LC; Moseley JP
    J Prosthet Dent; 1994 Mar; 71(3):316-8. PubMed ID: 8164177
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 16. Comparison of the accuracy of plastic and metal stock trays for implant impressions.
    Del'acqua MA; de Avila ÉD; Amaral ÂL; Pinelli LA; de Assis Mollo F
    Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants; 2012; 27(3):544-50. PubMed ID: 22616047
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 17. Effect of impression tray design upon the accuracy of stone casts produced from a single-phase medium-bodied polyvinyl siloxane impression material.
    Saunders WP; Sharkey SW; Smith GM; Taylor WG
    J Dent; 1992 Jun; 20(3):189-92. PubMed ID: 1624625
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 18. Visual observation of the dynamic flow of elastomer rubber impression material between the impression tray and oral mucosa while seating the impression tray.
    Nishigawa G; Natsuaki N; Maruo Y; Okamoto M; Minagi S
    J Oral Rehabil; 2003 Jun; 30(6):608-13. PubMed ID: 12787458
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 19. Clinical trial investigating success rates for polyether and vinyl polysiloxane impressions made with full-arch and dual-arch plastic trays.
    Johnson GH; Mancl LA; Schwedhelm ER; Verhoef DR; Lepe X
    J Prosthet Dent; 2010 Jan; 103(1):13-22. PubMed ID: 20105676
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 20. Efficacy of tray adhesives for the adhesion of elastomer rubber impression materials to impression modeling plastics for border molding.
    Nishigawa G; Sato T; Suenaga K; Minagi S
    J Prosthet Dent; 1998 Feb; 79(2):140-4. PubMed ID: 9513098
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

    [Next]    [New Search]
    of 8.